|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Joe Shaw wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, joseph j. kim wrote: > >From Cisco's: > > technology preview of Cisco's new family of gigabit switch routers (GSRs) > providing high performance solutions ranging from 5 to 60 Gb/s for > Internet and large-scale WAN Intranet backbone applications. > > Now, I've got a GRF 400 with the ATM OC-3c card, the FDDI card, and the > 10/100Base-T card. It works flawlessly. And I can't honestly see how the > > > Also, not that I know anything about the GRF but I think Cisco > > claims that 7500 real-world performance is much better than the GRF400. > > I've had cisco sales reps claim even more ludicrous things while the > support engineer started turning red, so who knows... hi, Ok. since no one else bothered to post real numbers here are some: Cisco numbers: ============= Cisco 7500 Ascend GRF Performance 2 Gbps 4 Gbps System Bandwidth 1.4 Mpps 2.8 Mpps Theoretical Performance with 65 - 85 Kpps 35 - 70 Kpps 180 byte (Bi-directional) (Bi-directional) packets Line Card Forwarding 325 Kpps 280 Kpps Rate (7507 w/ 5 VIP.s) (Fully Loaded) Real Performance Performance w/ Services 880 - 1000 Kpps 140 - 210 Kpps Routing Table Size 250,000 + 150,000 + The tolly/ascend report numbers: =============================== looking at their data (n.t. = not tested): # of modules cisco 7514 w/rsp4 GRF1600 GRF400 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 122,300 60,388 59,731 2 244,520 120,848 119,348 3 366,516 n.t. n.t. 4 368,575 241,516 236,776 6 367,774 360,000 8 367,302 483,016 16 n.t. 965,424 Using Random IP- in this test the routers were re-booted and the performance measured at 15 minutes after boot time. also, destination IP addresses were varied by randomly generating class c dest. addresses. random ip test (at +15 min. after boot): # of modules cisco 7513 w/rsp4 GRF1600 ------------------------------------------------ 1 41,096 54,454 2 84,504 107,720 3 72,762 162,750 4 86,654 217,700 5 71,867 265,500 So, who's numbers should we believe or feel are more appropriate to real world situations? > Comparing GateD to IOS becomes more of a religious preference than > anything else. I'm content knowing both, truth be told. > > > maybe someone can post some performance numbers. -jjk
|